Really can't agree there. It was effective, but it was as ugly as anything came up with, save for their efforts in the bronze match. & It's obviously easier to be brave in that than the final.

Feels much like '99 now for me, NZ the best team but got taken out by a French team who couldn't repeat the dose, leaving the draw open for the team with the best defence to take the crown.

I tend to agree re. Argentina, they played a game that suited themselves but was hardly appealing - almost gave the impression of an English-like game at times. But to their credit they had more support than any team come the semi finals and came away from the tournament with a considerable fan base and some extremely pleasing results.

Also agree with the second statement, and I almost would not be surprised if we're saying the same thing in four years!

I admit that England played crap in the pool stages, but when it really mattered they played well. I think that South Africa only ever went through a few 'gears'. They weren't the side that we had seen earlier in the year.

Finally, someone who gets what I'm trying to say!

So you're saying they won without going into top gear? So basically they were the best side out there.

Originally Posted by cpr

3. Although Cow Tipping is a hilarious student game in backwater towns such as Bangor, there really is no need for Mitchell to cover one side of the cow in superglue

Really can't agree there. It was effective, but it was as ugly as anything came up with, save for their efforts in the bronze match. & It's obviously easier to be brave in that than the final.

Argentina beating France and Ireland in their pools was a bigger achievement than South Africa winning the World Cup. They may have played ugly at times, but they scored tries in all of their games. I do think their style is more suited to taking Six Nations scalps; they'd get a fair few hidings if they ever joined the Tri-Nations, but they played out of their skins in the WC. They doubled their wins total from the first five World Cups.

Feels much like '99 now for me, NZ the best team but got taken out by a French team who couldn't repeat the dose, leaving the draw open for the team with the best defence to take the crown.

New Zealand sucked in 1999. Australia were the most organised side, as they went on to prove until the last hurrah in 2003. I agree with your point, though. South Africa were the most organised side in this WC. That's how it's been ever since the game turned professional.

Interesting to note that New Zealand and South Africa were joint favourites with the bookies going into the 1999 World Cup with Australia a close second. None of the other teams were favoured by the bookies.

Interesting to note that New Zealand and South Africa were joint favourites with the bookies going into the 1999 World Cup with Australia a close second. None of the other teams were favoured by the bookies.

Perhaps they missed the 1998 tri-nations.

TBF NZ had pissed the '99 Tri-Nations tho, beating SA home & away & only losing to Oz when Matt Burke had a freakish game & kicked about two-dozen penalties.

"The PFA does not represent players when they have broken the law and been convicted on non-football matters."- Gordon Taylor in 2009 following Marlon King's release after a prison sentence for sexual assault & ABH

Argentina beating France and Ireland in their pools was a bigger achievement than South Africa winning the World Cup. They may have played ugly at times, but they scored tries in all of their games. I do think their style is more suited to taking Six Nations scalps; they'd get a fair few hidings if they ever joined the Tri-Nations, but they played out of their skins in the WC. They doubled their wins total from the first five World Cups.

Chesterfield got to the Semis of the FA Cup a few seasons ago. They were a smaller team that got to a stage where they really shocked everyone by getting to it. Did they therefore play the best football in the competition? No course they didn't.

Argentina weren't really a Cinderella story, though. If they ever play in the Six Nations, I reckon they could win it within a few years.

Sooner IMHO. They've beaten the champions (twice) & the runners-up at the WC and the WC finalists at home last autumn.

My big concern is if they aren't included in one of the big comps soon the current crop will have passed its sell-by date and they won't be such a force. Same prob with Italy, 2000 was a couple of years too late for them & they're only just becoming competitive again now.

The problem is that none of the unions want Argentina in their competitions. Until the UAF adopts professionalism, they're going to have a hard time getting regular Test matches let alone joining a major tournament. Even if South Africa go belly up in the Tri-Nations, Australia and NZ will push for something involving the Pacific Island nations. As a South American country, Argentina are stuck in no man's land. But so long as the players continue to play European club rugby, I think they'll be competitive.